Buxom Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Outlaw sugar, lower the drinking age to 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1998StandardSG Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Anything consumed in excessive amounts with have adverse effects to the human body be it disease, weight gain, or whatever else. Consume moderately and be active and you will be fine. I'm not a health expert or somebody to give dietary advice but if you choose a cupcake over a carrot 9 out of 10 times... Or soda over water and don't exercise or consume these in excessive amounts, then you're going to have issues in the long term. Eat what you want and be happy, but do it in moderation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.R.M.30! Posted June 1, 2012 Author Share Posted June 1, 2012 How about genenic dispostion to being over weight? Not all weight issues are simply because of how one is nurtured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabba2203 Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 This is the kind of tyranny who's blood was meant to water the tree of liberty. "No sugar for you, but drink all the booze you want because we tax the hell out of it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 It'll be pretty hard to make a Lemon Meringue Pie without sugar. But it's cool, I know a guy down the street who'll have black market connections with the Cane Lords from Peru. On a slightly more serious note, the top consumers of sugar per capita are Brazil, Australia, Thailand, and the European Union (according to Wikipedia, in this case we can believe that source). None of those countries are having weight issues. Perhaps it's the crap we ingest in frozen food, prepackaged foods, and fast foods that are fattening our lazy asses. Perhaps sugar is just sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 It'll be pretty hard to make a Lemon Meringue Pie without sugar. But it's cool, I know a guy down the street who'll have black market connections with the Cane Lords from Peru. On a slightly more serious note, the top consumers of sugar per capita are Brazil, Australia, Thailand, and the European Union (according to Wikipedia, in this case we can believe that source). Non of those countries are having weight issues. Perhaps it's the crap we ingest in frozen food, prepackaged foods, and fast foods that are fattening our lazy asses. Perhaps sugar is just sweet. It's the high fructose syrup, among other things, that make us gain weight. Sugar does nothing that drastic. Sugar is a good thing. A sweet thing! They shouldn't go after sugar. They should go after the crap that is passed off as sugar, put in our food supply, and, more in importantly, the people that let that happen. In my coffee, regular cane sugar beats Sweet N' Low or any other sweetener any day of the week. When one asks me about Sweet N' Low, fake sugar is not what comes to mind first.... Sweet N' Low is my code name for something that rhymes with "low'....(that's a hint...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Yeah, some of us are more genetically disposed toward adding weight than others - but even that can be handled by just a tiny bit of lifestyle and psychological change. My late father, my brothers and I have similar genetics. My younger of my two younger brothers weighs most for his height and he's a vegetarian. The elder outweighs me by 20 pounds or so at the same altitude and a shade over age 60 at five years younger than I am. My Dad outweighed me from his age 40 or so up to around 80 by 60-70 pounds or so. Sorry, it's lifestyle, but not necessarily major or crazy stuff. Genetics play a role, but not as much as what you do and what you eat. Oh - and technically I've gotten nearly zero functional exercise the past 15 years due to lifestyle - but told the old carcass to lose 10 pounds 'cuz I couldn't make it work hard enough in lifestyle. So... I weigh roughly the same as I did at 25, 35, 45, 55 and <grin> when I was younger at 65. I was in my best physical condition up to age 22, then in ways downhill, then much better off overall from 30 to 45. EDIT: BTW, I eat what, when and how much I want to eat... m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 It's the high fructose syrup, among other things, that make us gain weight. Sugar does nothing that drastic. Sugar is a good thing. A sweet thing! They shouldn't go after sugar. They should go after the crap that is passed off as sugar, put in our food supply, and, more in importantly, the people that let that happen. In my coffee, regular cane sugar beats Sweet N' Low or any other sweetener any day of the week. When one asks me about Sweet N' Low, fake sugar is not what comes to mind first.... Sweet N' Low is my code name for something that rhymes with "low'....(that's a hint...) I should have added the high fructose corn syrup as part of the stuff they put in prepackaged foods. There's a law in Italy that ensured all products labeled Pasta have certain ingredients making them Pasta as opposed to some other type of noodle. Perhaps sugar need a similar law. Or a food law in general that states you cannot market Twinkies as a substitute for food. Or that your frozen pizza cannot be marketed as food if it has the same nutritional value as a Twinkie. Regulate the industry, not the consumers nor the substance. Like the Tobacco industry, it should never be illegal to smoke, but it should be illegal for them to purposely make cigarettes more addictive by adding nicotine extract and other addictive additives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brundaddy Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I agree with Milod: "Genetics play a role [in obesity], but not as much as what you do and what you eat." Is sugar the new drug? It's the old drug! It goes back to colonialism and before. And sugar indirectly helps cancerous tumors grow, boys and girls. Cancer growth is promoted by insulin, which shoots up when you consume any carbs. Insulin levels also shoot up when you consume caffeine, and combining caffeine with carbs is a double whammy on the pancreas. Something to think about for those of us who like to have coffee with bread or pastries. Or Coke, Dr. Pepper, Mountain Dew, sweet tea, etc. I don't think spreading jam on toast does you any favors either. Lots of people are addicted to sugar. It's absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I should have added the high fructose corn syrup as part of the stuff they put in prepackaged foods. There's a law in Italy that ensured all products labeled Pasta have certain ingredients making them Pasta as opposed to some other type of noodle. Perhaps sugar need a similar law. Or a food law in general that states you cannot market Twinkies as a substitute for food. Or that your frozen pizza cannot be marketed as food if it has the same nutritional value as a Twinkie. Regulate the industry, not the consumers nor the substance. Like the Tobacco industry, it should never be illegal to smoke, but it should be illegal for them to purposely make cigarettes more addictive by adding nicotine extract and other addictive additives. This is pretty much my stance. Don't ban it, label it so consumers have full knowledge of what they are stuffing into their pie hole. That includes GMO stuff like the vegetable oil blends they use for potato chips, the fact that soy lowers sperm count, and that aspartame is both a neurotoxin and will cause you to crave more carbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I don't know exactly what the deal is, but I find it interesting that when I was a kid there were no problems with folks eating peanuts. Nowadays our elementary school is "peanut-free" so it supposedly won't kill some of the kids. But... I guess when I was a kid they also didn't drug up little boys who were rambunctious on occasion so the teachers wouldn't have to deal with "boy" issues and all the kids would act like the girls did when I was a kid. Ah, our significantly better lifestyle... m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrNylon Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Now it's going to be the Untouchables again, combating bootleg Cokes. These guys must be on real coke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Hey, they already have bootleg ciggies 'cuz folks don't wanna pay $10 for a 25-cent pack of 20. And they spend more money making smoking legal tobacco more of a "no-no" than smoking mary-jane that's not legal. Now they're doing the same with soft drinks and... sheesh. I get the feeling that in a saloon you can get a bigger glass of beer than you can get Coca Cola in a deli. Ain't gov'ment wonderful? m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.R.M.30! Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 Maybe the thread should be about the negative side effects of sugar on the body. That would be a short thread as one would chime in and say that there are no negative effects from eating sugar, it's just so darn addictive for some reason. Looks like I've believed in "old wives tales" from the begininng of my growth of realization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Bone Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Interesting, seems some of us don't believe in the underage rules. Then again laws are different country to country. Your OP doesn't mention age, or underage at all. Just rules (presumably laws) wanting to restrict availability of a substance. Freedom has been corrupted enough. The Government needs to stay out of our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaleb Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Sugar is like a wah pedal.... It is not good to eat it too much... It is awesome when used appropriately.... A little analogy for us axe-slingers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 To me the problem and question isn't so much whether one should consume the amounts of sugar many of us consume, but rather the degree to which government should be inserting itself into private decisions, all of which admittedly do have collective consequences if one considers "costs" of various health and safety concerns. I personally tend definitely more toward the libertarian perspective for a number of reasons, not the least of which are un or understated costs of enforcement. For example, the world's automobiles cost far, far more than in the 1950s, and are less comfortable and little less dangerous, thanks to national "safety" regulation. Cars are smaller, disposable and cost a lot more; gasoline mileage is little different than real world experience of the 1950s when I could take a big Chrysler at 75 mph with five passengers and guitar gear with roughly 27 mpg. You might make a case that lesser smog is one result for urban areas, but where I live, it means that a $10,000 vehicle costs at minimum double, and cost of operation are similar. The thing that bothers me is that "we" in Anglophone nations at least, tend to legislate through fad "common knowledge" promoted by various interest groups that may or may not have the science right. Even if they have the science right, the next question is the more practical and less expensive means of bringing about change. Whether one things Gibson was evil and illegal in terms of rosewood imports, one has to question the mode in which government response was made. Back when the anti-tobacco "thing" arose, almost nobody was questioning economic impacts even on US exports - just purported impact of health care. Yet the figures of that latter were, and are weighted toward an assumption that anyone who dies at age 90 with certain ailments, that they died as a result of smoking and/or passive smoking. Has anybody considered loss of export and agricultural revenue from tobacco farming both on a micro and macroeconomic level? Not that I've seen in the media. It ain't politically correct. Nowadays you see in the US all these horrid "it's because of smoking" ads, but little or nothing on the effects of various illicit drug uses that continue with little but cursory news coverage of how just about everything but meth and patently poisonous drugs should be legalized. There's functionally no "coverage" or federal advertising that considers long-term health effects even of the one-time fad of attempted teen suicide by tylenol overdose. And... meanwhile we ingest how much "plastic" each year, not to mention other current questionable chemicals? One might note also that there are bundles of "safety" regulations that have significant economic impact but little or no statistical effect - drain grates on swimming pools, for example, to prevent child deaths resulting from lack of supervision around draining pools far fewer than child deaths resulting from drowning in toilets or 5-gallon pails of water. I guess my concern is more that government jumps on fads far too often and then becomes draconian in enforcement that props up increasing bureaucracies that have far more cost than the presumed benefits. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Natural Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Not according to the FDA Fructose is, indeed, sugar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I thought we have been over this. HFCS can not be called sugar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Natural Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Fructose is a sugar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrNylon Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I'm sure glad there isn't anything more important going on in the country than sugar Yah or Nay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 GS... Actually this one is but one aspect of what it seems to me is the major question in current Anglophone politics - and not just in the U.S. The question is how much control over the individual's life should be in the hands of government. The responses will vary on different particulars as filtered through one's general political perspective - but it's something that is at the foundation of current politics. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Fructose is a sugar. Vanilla extract has alcohol in it. Why don't we call it booze? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 If an underage person has imbibed of vanilla extract or other substances containing alcohol, booze is exactly what he/she will be perceived as having used in the eye of the law. Even aftershave and other stuff regardless how it may be otherwise poisonous. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigzag Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Obviously it is government intrusion to regulate an individual's consumption of sugar. It is good that producers of food products elect to use stevia or maltodextrin/dextrose (the ingredients in Splenda) where possible and promote it that way. How many of you choose to drink lite beer? My complaint is with food processors who are adding sugar to foods that people expect to be low in calories and elect to eat for the dietary benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.